I would loathe global warming alarmists less if I could find one who is willing to walk the walk. For example, I would like Al Gore, if he lived like a pauper. I wouldn’t agree with him, but I would respect him. Instead, he preaches sacrifice for the world, while he lives the life of a glutton. That’s annoying.
I think that Mr. Gore’s two-faced approach to the “climate crisis,” as he calls it, is indicative of the green movement as a whole. To be precise, middle and upper class white Americans want “to do something” about the supposed problem of climate change, but they don’t want to be the ones to do it. Instead, they want “polluters” to pay, apparently not realizing that they themselves are the “polluters.”
[click to continue…]
There are many reasons to dislike wind power. For some people, giant wind turbines mar scenic vistas. Others don’t like it because it’s an unreliable, expensive source of electricity. I hate it reflexively, because the government forces us to use it, but that’s only an ancillary explanation of my anti-wind beliefs. To me, wind power is most objectionable because it kills things that I enjoy, like human beings.
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that there were 281 occupational health “incidents” in the wind power industry last year. Since the late 1970s, wind power has killed 78 people. It is ironic, in the Alanis Morissettian sense of the word, that global warming has yet to kill anyone, but wind power—a global warming “solution”—has taken out nearly 4 score humans.
[click to continue…]
Now that Republicans feel that they have won a minor victory over Obama on the debt deal, they might be more likely to make concessions on non-debt/spending related issues like the confirmation of Commerce Secretary nominee John Bryson. It is more important than ever that fans of the free-market pressure the Senate to oppose the nomination of this rent-seeking, radical environmentalist. In a Kansas City Star op-ed published this morning, I show why his corporatist past is reason enough to block Bryson’s nomination.
[click to continue…]
Environmentalist special interests run the sleaziest attack ads in the business, as has been noted before on this blog, and also by my colleague Marlo Lewis. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican (like Sen. Scott Brown) or a Democrat (like Sen. Mary Landrieu)—if you don’t toe the green line, then environmentalist advocacy groups will go for your jugular. Almost always, these enviro organizations try to pin an allegation of child abuse on those with whom they disagree. Classy!
Case in point: The American Lung Association’s tasteless new television ad campaign, which I’ve posted at the end of this blog. Here’s how the ALA described the spot in a press release:
[click to continue…]
Last week, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would again increase fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks. According to one knowledgeable source, these auto regulations are pie-in-the-sky. Nonetheless, environmentalists are dissatisfied.
Usually, when environmentalists oppose environmental policy, it’s because the measure in question isn’t green enough. In California, for example, environmentalists oppose to solar power in the Mojave Desert, based on the fact that the installation of solar panels might hurt a tortoise. However, in the case of the President’s new fuel efficiency standards, environmentalists oppose the policy because it isn’t free-market enough. Seriously. Consider this amazing excerpt, from the Associated Press’s weekend write up of the new fuel efficiency regulations,
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org